Bryce Edwards on National’s third term

A long list of negative episodes have plagued John Key’s third term. Ranging from very damaging to trivial, these sagas have far outnumbered the few achievements of the Government since re-election.

National went into the election with little policy, but even what it did have has fallen by the wayside. Progress on other core right-wing policy issues has been woeful.

What’s more, the Government has struggled in key areas, such as formulating a popular climate-change response, convincing the public about sending troops to Iraq again, dealing with state surveillance and now the global economic problems.

The unfavourable ratio of damaging episodes to achievements strongly suggests National is now suffering from third-term blues, or “third-termitis”. This affliction is normally taken to mean that a government has become stale, arrogant and prone to errors.

The Government’s critics rightly ask where the fresh ideas are, or whether the Government has any vision left. …

Increasingly there is an acknowledgement of National’s “succession problem”. Key remains popular, but the lack of replacement options indicates another weakness.

Bill English is in the twilight of his career, Steven Joyce is technocratic and uncharismatic, Paula Bennett is seen as a lightweight and junior ministers are too inexperienced.

As is often the case with long-term governments dominated by a single figure, no new talent can prosper. It’s only once back in opposition that the party can truly see who is capable of rising to the top.

But he then looks at the other side:

A glance at any opinion poll indicates National’s extraordinary popularity. For example, the latest Herald-Digipoll puts National on 51 per cent support, and Key on 64 per cent.

Not only has the Government not dropped in support since its re-election, it is just as popular as when it first romped to power in 2008. In fact, the public’s so-called honeymoon with Key – which began in late 2006 – has lasted an astonishing nine years. Clearly, Key has the potential to go down in history as New Zealand’s most successful prime minister. …

Key has made his mantra “it’s the issues that matter” which determine how New Zealanders vote. Since the Global Financial Crisis, voters have been focused on economic-related issues and the traditional concerns of education and health.

Therefore, as at last year’s election, the central role of the economy is the main factor in National’s success. National continues to be perceived as a cautious and competent manager in difficult and uncertain times. This year’s Budget simply reinforced that image.

National’s pragmatic and clever manoeuvring is also a big factor in its success. The party has been careful not to stray too far from the views of middle New Zealand. Part of this is simply down to the dominance of pragmatists in Cabinet and caucus.

This doesn’t mean National hasn’t veered down the path of radicalism occasionally – most prominently in state-housing sell-offs and the social investment bond exercise. But such initiatives have been exceptions.

And Key’s instincts are to pull back from the extremes. When Labour has started to get traction on an issue, National has found ways to deftly shift positions. This normally involves adopting moderate policies, often adapted or stolen from opposition parties.

On key issues such as inequality and child poverty, National has sought to assuage worries with increases in benefit rates. Similar moves have been made to deal with growing concerns about capital gains taxes, foreign house buyers, and poor-quality rental properties. Much of this might be tinkering but it sends a strong message that the Government has listened.

The public don’t have to agree with every solution the Government comes up with, but they do want the Government to be listening and doing something.

A third reason National has been able to withstand scandal and embarrassment is it has already accumulated substantial political capital. Key has previously impressed the public with his Government’s management of serious problems – most notably the GFC, the Christchurch earthquake and the Pike River disaster. Competent political management in these areas has produced a reservoir of goodwill.

National therefore has the benefit of the doubt. The public has been ready to forgive or ignore any missteps. Even the ponytail embarrassment, which was viewed negatively by National supporters, could be forgiven. When a politician is largely trusted, as Key is, his failings will be discounted by voters.

In contrast with the Clark Government’s third-term, when Labour tended to dig its heels in rather than apologise or reverse from an unpopular direction, Key is more ready to U-turn or admit mistakes.

In general, Key appears to be aware of the need to combat third-termitis. His attempt to rejuvenate the party while in power has been unequalled.

Today’s Cabinet of 20 contains only 11 ministers who have been there since the start. Even more starkly, five of the six ministers outside Cabinet are new. And the wider caucus has been refreshed. More than a quarter of the caucus are new MPs elected last year.

The rejuvenation of Cabinet and caucus has been a real success story, but you can’t rest on your laurels. Rejuvenation needs to be constant.

Bryce then looks at the overall situation:

Ambition will be a powerful driver in keeping the Government on the popular path. Obtaining a fourth term is the Holy Grail for National and it’s within its grasp – the iPredict website of political betting, lists National’s chances as being 62 per cent. Such an achievement would push Key ahead of Keith Holyoake’s record of 12 years as Prime Minister, making him the longest-serving PM since Richard Seddon, who served from 1893 to 1906.

And after that, a fifth term is distinctly possible. That would have Key even beating Seddon’s 13 years at the top, making him New Zealand’s longest-serving PM.

Generally the chances of a Government getting a 4th term should be around 20% at best. To be at 62% probability of a fourth term says something about both the Government and the Opposition.

Related Stories

Comments (46)

igm

Letting in more murderous Muslims assures us that National have no show of a fourth term. I, along with many supporters and donors of this once decent party, have now had a gutsful. This, on top of the CYU drafted Work and Safety, and continued grovelling to Maori, have really tipped the scales . . . this capitulation by Key will really sink him.

Scott

I am not sure of that igm? The government have said today they’ll take more refugees but it will not be in the thousands. So the media driven narrative to do something will be assuaged while hopefully we will not get too many extra Muslims in our country.
Sadly there are thousands of Christians in Syria who are really getting persecuted, up to and including crucifixion. I’d like to see our government move to help them!

SGA

@DPF

To be at 62% probability of a fourth term says something about both the Government and the Opposition.

Which raises a point that the original article doesn’t really consider. Opinion polls of support measure preference, not absolute support. So part of National’s “success” may just reflect weakness in the major competitors. igm’s little rant (@7:27am) serves as a good example – if you don’t like those things about National, are you really going to vote Labour or Greens instead?

freedom101

By all means allow Syrian Christians into NZ but definitely no Muslims, under any circumstances. Key has not made it clear where he stands on this. This is not the time to be PC. You only have to see the problems in Europe from Muslim immigrants to know that we would be changing our way of life for the worse by letting them in. Why don’t other Muslim countries accept Muslims – Indonesian, Malaysia, Nigeria, many countries in the Middle East. Not us please Mr Key.

This is the litmus test you need to ask if you think National has been successful – “If in 2008, you looked forward 7 years and NZ had the following development, would you assume a National Government has been in power or a labour Green combination”?

– inflation busting rises for benefits
– maintaining and increasing the scope all of Labour’s bribes such as WFF
– continual and damaging cuts to our armed forces whereby our Navy has joined the airorce in being a joke
– Government led campaigns to legailise gay marriage, change the flag as well as a complete re-write of all NZ history taught in schools along very left wing revisionist lines
– huge bailouts of cronies from South Canterbury Finance to SkyCity
– NZ now becoming a surveillance state
– massive increases in Islamic immigration and “Kiwis” off to Iraq to fight for ISIS
– $80 billion + in debt despite extremely favourable terms of trade and record artificiality low interest rates.
– Ignoring of all public initiated referenda with overwhelming support that gets the state out of our live
– A massive advance in the pro Maori Treaty industry which has seen Iwi paid settlements 3/4 times for the same reason and being such a soft touch that Auckland Maori have the gall to ask for the whole of Auckland
– huge intrusion of the state into our lives through the passing of nanny state laws. Scaffolding to get on the roof, $40k fines for riding a motorbike on a farm ffs
– I could add more but you get the picture.

IMHO – being “successful” doesn’t mean staying in power. It means doing something you set out to do.

In Vino Veritas

Edwards shows his political colours by using the word “neoliberalism”. It is just a word constantly used by the left as a perjorative term for anything to do with the reality of markets. The fact that he has a job because of market reality seems to constantly escape him. His views are seldom balanced, and should be taken with a grain of salt.

FeralScrote

Quite frankly , it is the LabourGreen level of stunning incompetence,ignorance and all round uselessness that probably make National look better than what they actually are.
Picking your favourite politician is a little like choosing what STD you`d like to have.

Boris Piscina

There isn’t much new here and the danger for us right now lies in believing that there is. No Party stays in Government forever, no political career lasts forever, no political Leader lives forever. History in New Zealand is that Governments have traditionally been voted out rather than in.

Right now I truly believe out greatest asset looking towards a fourth term is not John Key’s popularity, but rather the utter lack of anyone or anything remotely resembling a credible Leader or alternative Government on the left hand side of the ledger, particularly within Labour.

That could change very rapidly however if the next actually functional Labour Leader – and they have had some, I hated Helen Clark with a passion but it is undeniable that she was very effective and very popular – enters Parliament, takes the reins, ands steers Labour in a moderately conservative centrist direction that appeals to middle voters who are becoming bored with the same old fare.

In such a situation, the prospect of NZF joining them could prove to be our biggest hurdle. Right now they are our potential best option for an ally going forward. Forget ACT, that duck is shot. Forget CCCP, that isn’t ever going to happen.

On the other matter, Syrian Christians yes by all means but not too many of them. And not one single more Mohammedan, please, this isn’t rocket science, we all know what WILL happen if we keep letting those bacteria in.

mikenmild

Sure, Key has refreshed his cabinet line-up a few times already, but there is no obvious contender to succeed him as leader. This is generally a problem in New Zealand, we have never had a government in modern times that made a successful leadership transition. This is probably not Key’s main worry; his personal legacy as a long-surviving PM seems assured. His greatest accomplishments – well, maybe they are still ahead.

Inandout

BeeJay

Bryce Edwards trying to appear impartial is still the same lefty as ever! A must read re the Refugee crisis is the Washington Post story on 04 Sept headed “The Arab world’s wealthiest nations are doing nothing for Syria’s refugees”! What fools are we, so willing to accept refugees while their own wealthy Muslim neighbors must be having a great giggle at the shit going on in Europe, and the idiot Western media pushing the sympathy barrow to all and sundry. We don’t need to import Muslims into NZ, their number are growing fast enough without adding to them with refugees. You’ve seen the idiot media reminding us about the refugees we were happy to accept during and after WW2, without making it clear that these were mostly people from Europe affected by Hitler’s reign of terror, and most were Christian! What wonderful people they were who have merged seamlessly into NZ society. Earlier in the 20th Century many refugees came to NZ from the Middle East, Lebanese and Syrians mostly, many whose surnames are famous in NZ for their achievements! And mostly Christian. We are a Christian country, we don’t want to be a Muslim country, help with the refugee crisis for sure, but make sure we bring in refugee Christian families, if there are any left after their slaughter by murdering extremist Muslims in their own countries!

igm

Remember, these Muslims don’t like work, preferring to take taxpayers’ support and sell dungars off the side of the road. These churchy do-gooders best start paying rates and tax to keep these charlatans who will be waiting for an opportunity to knock them over . . . you reap what you sow churchmen.

RF

artemisia

Yep, the elephant in the room is the dismal quality of Labour leadership and policies, if there are any. Seems unbalanced for a political columnist to avoid that discussion in a review of current government.

igm

mikenmild

Seems unbalanced. But the article also omitted to say that the Key government has been given an easy ride by a fractured and weak opposition. In reality, the article was a review of the government, not the entire political environment.

That’s great igm, thanks. I’m in the job market right now, what opportunity do you have for me?

David Garrett

I join those above saying that the best thing the Nats have got going for them right now is the utter lack of talent – in leadership contention anyway – in the opposition. Little has made little (sorry) impact, and he is not likely to. It is always worth remembering that only FOUR of his caucus voted for him – he was and remains, a creature of the unions. He is also lacking in charisma (mind you, so was clark) and can’t win his home town seat of New Plymouth against a backbencher who gives a whole new meaning to “undistiguished”. Without Google, who of you know who he is?

Peters must surely drop dead from lifestylitis sometime – but then maybe he will be like his namesake, and live to be 90, despite the bottle of whisky a day and smoking like a train. Ron Mark has “it”, but his colleagues don’t like him, and I suspect his case of small mens’ disease would quickly become apparent if/when he succeeds the Great Charlatan. Can anyone remember anyone else in NZF now that Andrew Williams got thrown under the bus? I can’t, not offhand.

The Greens…I don’t know enough about Shaw…Kevin Hague would have had a good chance of appealing to a wider electorate, but I suspect – after humiliatingly losing the leadership contest – he won’t stay long. Unlike almost all the others (excepting Shaw) in that ragtag band of weirdos, he has other options.

Don’t write off Judith Collins…that lady is smart and tough…Here career is far from over…

mikenmild

It is hard to imagine any other current National politician taking over as PM from Key. As I noted above, this has not been successfully done before. You are right about the opposition weakness, David, but our political history has also shown that potential leaders can emerge quite suddenly.

tvb

When change happens they cleverly adopt a policy that is nuanced so as to not offend people too much. When the drink driving limit was reduced to 250 mg they cleverly made it a demerit point issue not a criminal charge. The refugee issue they will make it a temporary increase for 3 years of a few hundred. Not too much but enough to assuage people we are doing something. It is this nuanced approach to policy that makes National much cleverer politically than Labour who would go all they way and adopt the most extreme position way outside what middle NZ will stomach.

tom hunter

In one respect the Left’s constant attacks on Key make sense: take him out and there’s not much left.

The only problem is that the attacks have not worked for years now, which raises three questions.

First, is the Left counting on a War of Attrition strategy, where each attack seems to fail but which saps the strength of the enemy until they collapse suddenly?

Second, have people simply switched off the attacks because so many have been unhinged and they assume that any criticism is now just more of the same?

Third, have people cottoned on to the dull, cynical base of the attacks, which is to say that they’re almost entirely emotional, even when they rest on a substantive point?

In respect of that last question, I’m thinking of The Dim Post’s attack on Key the other day over the drowning of the little Syrian boy:

But Key didn’t get to where he is today by empathising with and helping helpless people, even though he’s ultimately only here because someone else did that for his family. His instincts are to help those who can help him and then extract maximal benefits from the exchange. And this mentality works for him personally, obviously, but it points to the nihilism in the dark heart of the transactional politics Key is such a master of: impoverished refugees have nothing to offer him, so they get nothing.

That attack also came to mine as I was talking with a Canadian friend the other day for the first time in a year or so (she’s based in Vancouver). She told me that they’re having an election. According to her, the media, the Liberal Party, the socialist NDP Party and the Green Party are all trying desperately to pin the death of that same boy on Conservative Prime Minister Harper. Apparently it’s getting no more traction than the same attacks on Key here.

tvb

David I have read your post. Judith Collins may be smart and tough but she fails on political judgement She has not handled political problems with much skill. Her haughty manner when cornered does her no good at all. And she is too close to Cameron Slater.

David Garrett

tom hunter: You are quite wrong…but your comments could be true of Little – take HIM out and what do you have left? Three guys who have had a go at being leader and failed; David Parker, who won’t be a serious contender because there is too much in his closet; Cosgrove? Puh-leeze (as we once said) Sepuloni? (Hoots of Tongan type laughter)…

Kelvin Davis is by far their best prospect – and he is emphatically NOT a creature of the unions, and not at all ideological..this present caucus – and more importantly the unions – could never agree on him.

On the Nats’ side you have a number who could step up if Key fell under the proverbial bus…English, at least as caretaker; Brownlee (ditto), Collins, Bennett, as a seat warmer for someone better, even Adams, although she has no real popular appeal.

dime

“What’s more, the Government has struggled in key areas, such as formulating a popular climate-change response, convincing the public about sending troops to Iraq again, dealing with state surveillance and now the global economic problems.”

Key areas for who? the far left? fuck em.

I couldn’t be assed reading the rest but if JK wants to know when he lost my vote.. i cant be sure but i think it was when he upped the bene for lazy fucks while keeping dimes tax up.

the refugee thing hasnt helped.

doing nothing about housing hasnt helped either. he should have grown a pair and sorted Auckland council.

the only way JK will get my vote this time round will be if ACT! actually die.. even then id probably vote winston as a “fuck you”.

mikenmild

Ross12

You can tell Edwards is an academic. He knows how to put down a lot of words without actually saying anything. Up until DFP’s first comment he has said nothing. The issues raised in his piece are just leftie issues they raise to keep themselves in the news. For example they tried the Key succession issue and got no where. Then they have changed it to Key is not interested in the job anymore. Now it is Key looks tired ( we’re all a bit tired of the long winter and are looking forward to some sunshine!!).

The reality is the Government is able to get on with the job and not put too much in the MSM ( even if they would publish it) because the opposition is so weak. Notice how much we hear of Winston lately , of the Greens ( you’d think they’d gone into hibernation since they dumped the Aussie) and others above have covered Labour.

Nostalgia-NZ

‘The party has been careful not to stray too far from the views of middle New Zealand. Part of this is simply down to the dominance of pragmatists in Cabinet and caucus.’ This point made by Edwards and elsewhere where he has pointed out Key’s willingness to ‘pinch’ policy reveal his leadership. If you were an opposition party making progress on an issue only for Key to adopt a similar policy it would be demoralising, if as a result the opposition party focused on negatives that would not impact on Key’s popularity (often surprisingly) as has been seen over the years.

The electorate has a high tolerance for Key’s style of Government, as Edwards says ‘When a politician is largely trusted, as Key is, his failings will be discounted by voters.’ Add to that his willingness to apologise as Edwards also says. Reading here this morning about the refugees is revealed another reason for his success, no effective opposition, no alternative party (the coalition partners having been depowered.)

In writing this I’m reflecting on the fact that many comments above are focused on the refugee intake. On that point I will be interested to see what JK will say about that in the fullness of time – taking into account the concern by some posting here and no doubt more generally in the wider population. I’m looking forward to what he says, and his method of bringing the issue into focus beyond the understandable alarm for some. I expect a very human, middle of the road, response. He has decided to open the door in an offer of genuine help to people who have fled war, and among who may be some who nzers could rightfully feel anxious about to some degree. One has to wonder if the decision is entirely political, compassionate, pragmatic or a combination of all 3, but that may not matter at all because it is effective government.

For any nzer who may have had family serve or die overseas, particularly in the ME, it’s a poignant moment to consider what their thoughts could have possibly been faced with the situation Key now faces, a country which has gone to war in other lands having at their doorstep those fleeing from war in lands where NZ family members were lost. My instinct is to support him as it would be toward any other leader in troubled times. When it comes to the crunch, until there’s a leadership or Government change – he’s the man. He came onto the scene quickly and without a history of politics and reached the top. In a 2 mile thoroughbred race he’d be the favourite.

Unity

From where I’m sitting Key is only as popular as he seems because there is no viable alternative. A Labour/Green prospect turns people off in droves, but even if Labour looked a reasonable prospect they would need to go in with NZ First, ACT or (hopefully) a decent new Party that had a Leader with a bit of spine. With the Greens anywhere near them they don’t have a show.

Personally I’m very disappointed with National but some of the blame should be laid at the door of MMP. They are allowing our country to become rapidly increasingly racially divisive and that’s thanks in part to the Maori Party. All of this ‘partnership’ nonsense is a disgrace, totally wrong and skewing our society, not to mention costing us billions that could be put to better use elsewhere. Until we revert back to being treated equally under the law with nothing based on race, this country will continue to go down the gurgler.

Unless something changes drastically I may not even vote in the next election because I don’t like any of them and I’m certainly not going to give my vote to the best of a bad bunch which is what National is at the moment.

deadrightkev

Key will go down as being a major failure as a prime minister IMHO, not too much better than Bolger or Shipley. He may be great company at a BBQ and drinkies on a Friday without doubt but he sure is no visionary reformer with a spine. David Lange was soft but even he allowed Sir Roger Douglas to do what had to be done. Key has no stomach for that.

If people think that Key is great because he is popular they need to look seriously in the mirror at how high they set the bar for success and prosperity.